Class and Racial Liberalism : Inverted World

[EagleEye]

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/class/

Class and Racial Liberalism
By The Realist • 10/16/07

One of the great mysteries of our age is why whites believe that racial diversity is a strength when all the evidence says that it is not. The last column on The Inverted World, “The Destructive Class,” examined a particularly flagrant example of this stubborn refusal to see the truth. In his books about the Creative Class, economist Richard Florida maintains that diversity of all kinds leads to a more creative, innovative society; his own empirical research, however, shows the contrary.
I have argued that one reason for the prevalence of pro-diversity attitudes, or what I will call “racial liberalism,” is the desire of educated, affluent whites to maintain and increase their class power. Through pro-diversity, anti-Western attitudes, affluent whites display their intellectual and moral superiority to the conservative middle- and lower-class whites. As we saw in “The Ideology of the Professionals,” it was professionals, or workers whose livelihood depends on specialist educational credentials, such as doctors, lawyers, journalists, and engineers, who were in the vanguard of racial liberalism in the 1970s.
Data from the General Social Survey (GSS), a poll of American social attitudes conducted biannually by the National Opinion Research Center, offers powerful evidence for the class theory of racial liberalism.1 The GSS collects impressively detailed information about the demographics, customs, and beliefs of Americans. The data confirm unambiguously that the wealthiest and best educated whites are the most racially liberal. In fact, the correlations between racial liberalism, wealth, and income are generally at 0.8 or higher; such strong relationships are rarely seen in social science.
Additionally, GSS data allow us to probe racial liberals’ motives for supporting diversity and test the class theory of racial liberalism against the dominant one on the racial right: the “the Jews did it” theory. GSS data suggest that Jews are actually a minor factor in the prevalence of pro-diversity orthodoxy and that class considerations are much more important.
Race realism
Race realism is the belief that some racial differences in behavior are rooted in biology. Since one of the premises of racial liberalism is that there are no significant biological differences among the races, the prevalence of race realism in a group is a good measure of its liberalism on race.
One question in the GSS ascertains whether respondents are race realists (realists for short). It asks whether respondents think that blacks have worse jobs, incomes, and housing than whites because of an innate racial difference in the ability to learn.
Race realism is a minority position: only about nine percent of whites2 are realists. In accord with the class theory, belief in race realism is very strongly tied to education. As the chart below shows, 22 percent of whites with less than a high school education believe in the realist explanation of socioeconomic differences against four percent of those with a bachelor’s or graduate degree. The correlation between highest degree attained and belief in race realism is -0.89.3

Income also predicts realism. Thirteen percent of whites with an annual household income of $20-40,000 per year are realists, but only four percent of whites earning $90-110,000 per year. The correlation between income and realism is -0.82.

Predictably, professionals, whose jobs depend on specialized credentials and who are generally well-paid, are the most racially liberal occupation group, just as they were in the 1970s. However, it is surprising that managers and executives are almost as racially liberal as professionals, as the chart below shows. In the 1970s, there was a substantial difference between the views of professionals and high-income business people on race. For example, in 1974, 40 percent of professionals supported busing, but only 10 percent of business people did.4 Race realism is only slightly higher in the other white-collar groups of sales workers, clerical workers (secretaries, billing clerks, insurance examiners, and other low-level office employees), and technicians, who perform the more routine aspects of operating instruments and machinery. It is whites in non-white-collar sectors, like service and farming, who are most likely to be realists.

The GSS also allows us to determine what different categories of professionals think about race. (These statistics should be taken with a grain of salt, however, as the sample sizes for these categories are often very small.) The only group of professionals that is significantly more likely to be race realist than the white American mean is the medical group (doctors, nurses, and other medical workers), 13 percent of whom are realists. All other groups except the legal group are more prone to race denial than average, the most liberal professions being religious workers, teachers and professors, and professionals in the culture and communications field, such as musicians, journalists, and authors.

Other measures of racial liberalism
While the likelihood of belief in race realism is a good measure of racial liberalism, it is far from perfect. However well supported by the evidence, race realism today is an extremist position held only by a small minority. There are many people who do not believe in innate racial differences but who nevertheless believe that immigration is harmful to America and that minorities are treated with too much indulgence. While not realists, such people are not racial liberals either.
To provide a broader perspective on racial liberalism among different groups, I examined their scores on two questions included in the GSS for 2004. The first asked whether respondents agreed with the statement that immigrants improve American society by bringing in new ideas and cultures. The other question asked respondents to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how important they thought it was that the government respect and protect the rights of minorities.
The majority of whites are racially liberal on these questions: 59 percent believe immigrants improve society, and 77 percent answer 6 or 7 on the rights of minorities question.
Responses to these questions by education and income group show almost exactly the same pattern as the responses to the race realism question. There was a nearly perfect correlation between belief that immigrants improve America and education group (0.94); there was also a correlation of 0.65 by income group.

Professionals were again the most liberal group, followed closely by managers and executives. The other white collar groups were less racially liberal on this question, and most of the non-white-collar groups even more so. Though professionals seem to have converted business people to racial liberalism since the 1970s, other groups seem to be more skeptical.

My analysis of the rights of minorities yielded the same pattern as the other two. There was a correlation of 0.95 between highest degree attained and belief that it was important that the government protect minority rights, and a correlation of 0.73 for the income groups.
Competitive altruism
GSS data also allow us to test hypotheses on the motives of racial liberalism. In an article for American Renaissance, Ian Jobling suggested that pro-diversity attitudes among whites were caused by “competitive altruism.” His thesis is that displays of altruism increase social status and that racial altruism was particularly important in gaining social status today. The competitive altruism thesis predicts that the racial liberalism of elites is a product of a more general tendency to display high altruism.
My analysis provided strong support for the competitive altruism thesis. Altruism, as measured by likelihood of doing volunteer work for a charity at least once a month, correlates almost perfectly with income (0.96) and highest degree attained (0.98). While these correlations do not constitute proof that Jobling is right, they do suggest that he is on to something.

Jews, class, and racial liberalism
The majority of the racial right is under the impression that Jews are primarily responsible for the reign of racial liberalism in America. This theory has been strengthened by Kevin MacDonald’s book on Jewish influence in America, The Culture of Critique.
It is certainly true that Jews are more racially liberal than white non-Jews. In 2004, 90 percent of Jews agreed that immigration benefited America against only 53 percent of white Protestants and 49 percent of white Catholics.
However, because they make up such a small share of the population, Jews are also only a tiny minority of racial liberals. In fact, only five percent of whites who believe immigration is beneficial are Jews, and four percent of those who believe the government should protect the rights of minorities.
By contrast, 15 percent of white racial liberals had a graduate degree and 18 percent earned more than $110,000 per year. This fact suggests that the wealthy and educated play a greater role in promoting racial liberalism than Jews do.
Jews have been sparse among the ranks of racial liberals ever since the GSS began. In 1972, the survey’s first year, for example, only 7.5 percent of whites who supported busing were Jewish. Though Jews are disproportionately liberal, then, it is absurd to hold them responsible for the prevalence of racial liberalism.

It is clear that we have identified at least one source of the blind faith in diversity that holds the world in thrall: it is an intrinsic part of the identity of America’s upper class. This class sports its pro-diversity views as proof of the moral and intellectual superiority that entitles it to rule.
Given the link between education and race denial, the rise in rates of post-secondary education is undoubtedly a large factor in the growing popularity of racial liberalism. In the 1940s, only about five percent of Americans had a bachelor’s degree. In 2003, 27 percent did. It is no coincidence that racial liberalism surged as the fate of more and more people came to depend on the approval of leftist academics.
It is indeed an Inverted World in which high-school dropouts can see the truth better than Ph.D’s, but such is the world we live in. We realists face a daunting struggle. If we are to win, we must prevail against the most powerful and articulate people in America. Forbidding as this prospect may seem, it is impossible to fight an idea if you do not know the motives behind it. Knowing your enemy is the first step towards defeating him.

Well written article...I like how it uses stats to back up its arguments.